Re: ATOS Assessment
I totally agree with Cloggy about reporting the nurse to the NMC. However, I suspect it was someone else within ATOS who changed the report after the assessment had been completed. If a DWP Decision Maker places undue emphasis and weight on a nurse's report over that of a doctor, including hospital consultant, that is an error in law and they can be challenged over this.
Notwithstanding, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to a fair hearing. All rights under ECHR are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away from you, and inviolate, meaning they cannot be breached. Article 17 prohibits destruction of your Convention rights and Article 18 puts the damper on any attempt to restrict your Convention rights. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for any government agency or department, or commercial entity acting on behalf of a government agency or department or any person acting for or on behalf of a government agency or department to do any act that is incompatible with your Convention rights, that is, they try to deprive you of your rights, or restrict them or breach them. Can you imagine the look on the faces of DWP staff, ATOS staff and their "disability analysts" when they discover they are answerable under the HRA and can be held to account?
A Rule 35 statement will piss-off ATOS and DWP as it turns the tables on them and forces them to prove to a tribunal that the claimant's healthcare professionals are wrong.
If you need professional legal advice and/or representation in connection with this matter, click on the link for the National Pro Bono Centre in Cloggy's posts. They provide free legal advice and representation if you cannot afford to pay for legal costs or are ineliigble for legal aid.
I totally agree with Cloggy about reporting the nurse to the NMC. However, I suspect it was someone else within ATOS who changed the report after the assessment had been completed. If a DWP Decision Maker places undue emphasis and weight on a nurse's report over that of a doctor, including hospital consultant, that is an error in law and they can be challenged over this.
Notwithstanding, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to a fair hearing. All rights under ECHR are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away from you, and inviolate, meaning they cannot be breached. Article 17 prohibits destruction of your Convention rights and Article 18 puts the damper on any attempt to restrict your Convention rights. Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for any government agency or department, or commercial entity acting on behalf of a government agency or department or any person acting for or on behalf of a government agency or department to do any act that is incompatible with your Convention rights, that is, they try to deprive you of your rights, or restrict them or breach them. Can you imagine the look on the faces of DWP staff, ATOS staff and their "disability analysts" when they discover they are answerable under the HRA and can be held to account?
A Rule 35 statement will piss-off ATOS and DWP as it turns the tables on them and forces them to prove to a tribunal that the claimant's healthcare professionals are wrong.
If you need professional legal advice and/or representation in connection with this matter, click on the link for the National Pro Bono Centre in Cloggy's posts. They provide free legal advice and representation if you cannot afford to pay for legal costs or are ineliigble for legal aid.
Comment